Jack Gilliland is a highly regarded junior barrister with a broad, multi-disciplinary practice spanning criminal law, inquests, public inquiries, professional discipline, and international advisory work.
Jack is frequently instructed in complex and serious cases before the Crown Court, involving offences such as violence, firearms, drugs, fraud, and money laundering. He acts for both the prosecution and defence, whether led or as sole counsel. Notably, he was instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to provide pre-charge advice on high-profile investigations, including a multi-handed attempted murder case.
Jack also has extensive experience representing individuals and organisations in inquests and inquiries. He regularly acts for medical professionals in fitness-to-practise proceedings before healthcare regulators, including cases involving allegations of dishonesty or sexual misconduct. In a recent matter, he successfully persuaded a panel to recuse itself following the inadvertent disclosure of highly prejudicial material by the regulator.
In public inquiries, Jack was recently instructed as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan, where he drew upon his prior military experience. His civil practice includes representing local authorities, seeking various orders, injunctions, and remedies.
Before coming to the Bar, Jack served as a commissioned officer in the British Army, where he worked extensively with sensitive material in both domestic and international contexts. He also gained valuable experience in financial services and public affairs, having worked for Citi Private Bank in New York and a leading public affairs firm in Washington, D.C.
Jack has a strong defence practice and extensive experience in various aspects of general crime. His background prior to joining the Bar has honed his ability to quickly and effectively assimilate large volumes of information, a skill he applies in cases involving allegations of fraud, money laundering, and other complex offences.
R v RT (2024)
RT was charged with one count of intentional strangulation of their partner.
R v DC (2023)
DC was charged with two counts of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of class A.
R v RT (2023)
RT was charged with affray for using a crossbow against the siblings of a former partner, and with assault by beating against the former partner. After cross-examining the complainant, three siblings, a neighbour, and the OIC, RT was unanimously acquitted of both counts.
R v SM (2023)
SM was charged with two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), one involving the use of a knife and the other involving biting. An application to rely on non-defendant bad character evidence was granted. SM chose not to give evidence in their defence, and no other defence evidence was called. SM was acquitted of both counts.
Jack has built a robust inquest practice, representing individuals and organisations with ‘interested person’ status, including medical professionals, NHS Trusts, care homes, and other healthcare providers facing potential criticism.
Inquest into the death of MS (2024)
Represented a GP at an inquest into the death of a 33-year-old man, who sustained a workplace injury that led to deep vein thrombosis and a fatal pulmonary embolism. Following submissions on neglect and Regulation 28, the coroner made no adverse findings against the GP.
Inquest into the death of NH (2024)
Represented an NHS Trust at an inquest into the death of a man who took his own life following a reduction in his anxiety medication. The coroner concluded without issuing a Regulation 28 report.
Inquest into the death of SF (2023)
Represented a patient transport company at an inquest into the death of a woman, where her death was found to have been contributed to by injuries sustained during transport from hospital to home. The coroner made no criticism of the transport company.
Jack was appointed as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan, chaired by The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. His role involved managing and analysing a vast volume of evidence from different sources, including material of high sensitivity, and coordinating expert evidence.
Jack represents doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals in proceedings before their regulators. He has been instructed in cases involving allegations of dishonesty, sexual impropriety, and various clinical failings.
GDC v B (2024)
Following a serious criminal conviction, the GDC sought an interim suspension. Jack successfully argued that the conviction resulted from a momentary lapse in concentration, was not ‘dangerous’, and emphasised the registrant’s clean record, cooperation with the GDC, and strong professional reputation. The Committee accepted his arguments, ruling that an interim suspension was unnecessary and would not harm public confidence in the profession.
NMC v S (2023)
A nurse faced allegations of dishonesty, improper prescribing practices, and misuse of a prescription pad. While one dishonesty charge was found proven, Jack successfully argued against the NMC’s submission for a strike-off. The Panel instead imposed a five-year caution order, allowing the nurse to continue practising.
SWE v A (2022)
Jack represented a social worker who faced charges of sending inappropriate messages and harassment. The Panel found the messages were not misconduct, as they were not related to his professional duties. While misconduct was found for harassment, the Panel determined the behaviour was out of character, remediated, and unlikely to recur, concluding there was no need to find the social worker’s fitness to practise impaired.
Welcome to the spring edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter Christopher GeeringEditor Foreword Welcome to…
The Tribunal found that Dr Demanya had failed to diagnose sepsis in a 75-year-old woman…
Welcome to the latest edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter Christopher GeeringEditor Foreword Welcome to…
